WARNING - OLD ARCHIVES

This is an archived copy of the Xen.org mailing list, which we have preserved to ensure that existing links to archives are not broken. The live archive, which contains the latest emails, can be found at http://lists.xen.org/
   
 
 
Xen 
 
Home Products Support Community News
 
   
 

xen-devel

[Xen-devel] Linux: PG_pinned vs. PG_foreign

To: <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [Xen-devel] Linux: PG_pinned vs. PG_foreign
From: "Jan Beulich" <jbeulich@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 09:38:33 +0000
Delivery-date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 01:36:33 -0800
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
List-help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help>
List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xensource.com>
List-post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>
List-subscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Is it intentional that these two both use PG_arch_1? It seems at least risky
to me... And if intended, it would certainly deserve a comment. (I was about
to utilize PG_pinned for indicating pinned highmem-allocated PTEs when I
realized this collision.)

Thanks, Jan

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>